Posted on 04/28/2007 9:14:39 AM PDT by leadpenny
I don't think Reagan would have invaded Iraq. He fought the Cold War - and won - without invading a single country (except Granada, which was a rescue mission for some US students, and the operation lasted about a week). He was more about strategic show of force, deterrence, and containment to kill the Soviets by boxing them in and outspending them. Ironically, we had Saddam well contained - with spy flights over his country and tough sanctions. The success of our containment showed, in how quick we took down his pathetic army. I don't believe Reagan would have invaded. In fact, not only was Reagan's NSA chief - Odom - opposed to the invasion, but so was Jeane Kirkpatrick, Reagan's hawkish UN Ambassador.
I disagree on your point of politics. It’s not national security and the Rat position demonstrates exactly that.
I understand your fears and am not saying that they are unfounded. National Security is too important to surrender on any level. Your points are valid in that concern but it’s not a selective option.
This President will not surrender National Security to domestic political concerns.
Democrats always seem to find time and energy to oppose their real enemies: Republicans, corporate America (aka capitalism), and Judeo-Christian morality.
“The majority of Americans want our troops out - they’ll vote the GOP out (and Hillary in) if Bush doesn’t respond.”
I disagree. The majority of Americans want the troops out, sure. I want the troops out, HOWEVER, I want them out AFTER their mission is accomplished which means winning this thing. Poll after poll does NOT qualify the “troops out” question, then take the responses as proof of their (medias) predetermined outcome. Most Americans want the troops to be able to take the gloves off, stop fighting a politically correct war and go after the goons. IF IF IF they’re allowed to do that, the troops would be home inside of a year.
Note to self: Never take advice from someone who's name rhymes with "Saddam".
Or "Sodom".
If you mean he won't respond to voters' desire that we get out of Iraq, then he's electing Hillary. And she'll pull us out anyway. And she'll also make sure (along with the heavily Democrat Congress that will be elected) that we never have another Republican president or congressional majority. Friend, THAT's a national-security issue.
Besides, our national security won't be threatened by letting Iraqis take care of their own affairs. We can't make it into an American colony, so staying much longer only ups the chances of a Democrat tsunami on the home front, in 2008.
Yeah, the director of the NSA under the Reagan administration is a real dummy. Agree or not, calling him stupid shows your own stupidity. STFU.
The only hope that terrorists have is the Democratic party.
You disagree that voters will elect Democrats if we're still fighting in Iraq in Nov., 2008? Hope you're right, but the results of the 2006 elections - the GOP lost both houses of Congress as well as a bunch of governorships, remember? -- (as well as all the current polls) suggest you're engaged in wishful thinking.
Yeah when it comes to out spending the enemy I first think of Generals. Wrong! USSR collaped because we had a President committed to seeing them destroyed, and because they could not keep up superior technology, had a failed and a collapsed economy and weak leadership, not thanks to gutless generals who saw 3000 brave men who sacrified their lives and said "GIVE UP! RUN AWAY!" How many lives were lost in winning the cold war BTW?
But I degress. Please rank this "The Great General Odem" with the likes of a Washington, Jackson, Grant, Sherman, Persing, Patton or Macarthur, I believe who also said "GIVE UP! RUN AWAY!" when they hit the 3000 dead mark.
mid-term losses are normal. I think once most people see, if they haven’t already, that the dems are truly the party of surrender who simply cannot be trusted to handle issues of national security, the dems will lose the house, senate AND we’ll maintain the WH..
but, you and I agree to disagree..
He’s an idiot. And if you agree with his stupidity, you are too. A F’n Idiot, at that.
And that president hired Odom.
Odom sounds more like Eisenhower, who won the 1952 election by promising to end a long-drawn-out and inconclusive war that most Americans wanted ended.
>He (Reagan) was more about strategic show of force...<
Of course, our defense strengths were heavily obliterated during Bill Clinton’s miserable eight years.
Reagan was head and shoulders above W in so many ways, so W did what W thought he had to do, or what he was told to do, I don’t know which. All I know is the war is costing us precious American lives, and bankrupting the country. Having said all that, how can we exit Iraq before Iraqis can take over to manage without us?
The opposition could say, “If a man disturbs a hornet’s nest, the wise man runs.” However, I would say, “The wise man does not disturb a hornet’s nest.” Over simplification, but interesting ideas.
This and similar statements always recall Bush 41's oft repeated answer to the question of whether he gives advice to Bush 43. Bush 41 basically states that once a President leaves the WH he is no longer privy to the breadth and specifics of the data and intelligence information required to give important advice.
There’s a lot of wisdom packed in your post.
These “retired” Generals “advising” Bush on the War on Terror, are usually tired, old, liberals who came from the Army, spent years sucking up to higher ups in the Pentagon (and by the way, are they ALL Clinton spies over there).
In 1977, he was appointed as the military assistant to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the hawkish assistant to the president (Carter) for national security affairs. Primary issues he focused on at this time included American-Soviet relations, including the SALT nuclear weapons talks, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iran hostage crisis, presidential directives on the situation in the Persian Gulf, terrorism and hijackings, and the executive order on telecommunications policy.
Wow! By your standards, Carter should have been a genius like Reagan.
Well said!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.